The Criminal Congress Of The USA

(Editor’s Note: In light of the Congressional impasse on budget, coupled with the impending Presidential election season, I have updated this April 2010 article and am reposting it.)

Today I want to offer a very provocative proposition. Many of you are going to bristle at this article, and I’m pretty confident that the knives are going to be sharpened and pointed in my direction. But, before anyone begins slicing and dicing, I want you to refrain from ad hominem attacks and prove to me exactly where I’m wrong.

Here it is: I submit to you that all persons in Congress are criminals.

Let’s follow the trail of evidence to determine if any individual member of Congress may be exempted from this indictment.

Question 1: Who do you work for?

Answer: If you are a Congress-person, you are a Federal employee. Even though you are elected to Congress from your state to represent your state, your state does not pay your salary. The current salary (2010) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year plus expenses. The paychecks come from the US Treasury and are administered by the US Office of Personnel Management. You get a killer benefits package and a Federal pension, and are fully vested after only five years of participation.

Question 2: What constitutes an unlawful and/or illegal act for a Congress-person?

Answer: If you still believe that the US Constitution is the highest law of the land, then any law passed by Congress that violates the Constitution is a criminal act. It could also be argued that any vote made by any member of Congress that violates the US Constitution is an unlawful act and therefore a crime, regardless if the law passes or not. Compare this to an attempted burglary or attempted murder, which by definition are not successful but are still crimes.

If you believe that the US Constitution is a dead document with no authority, then you will likely believe that Congressionally-legalized plunder and the authorization of murder (deadly force) are crimes against natural law, the rights of individuals and State Constitutions. It could also be argued that any vote made by any member of Congress that violates natural law or the laws of a State Constitution is an unlawful act and therefore a crime, regardless if the law passes or not. Compare this to an attempted burglary or attempted murder, which by definition are not successful but are still crimes.

Either way, ALL members of Congress are guilty, either as an accessory, or as an accomplice, or as both accessory and accomplice.

Question 3: What is the definition of an accessory in criminal activity?

Answer: At law, an accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. All Congress-persons may be accessories to the crimes committed in and by Congress as they are all participants in the commission of the crimes as they pass laws. Wouldn’t the members who vote in the majority on any given bill be considered joint principals, and the rest mere accessories?

So, even if your Congress-person abstains from voting on any given bill, or votes ‘No’, he or she is still an accessory, since he or she is a member of a criminal entity engaged in criminal activity.

Question 4: What is the definition of an accomplice in criminal activity?

Answer: At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offense. Unlike an accessory, an accomplice is usually present when the crime is committed. So, the members of Congress who are not present in the chamber during a vote are still an accessory to the crime, since they participate in the process. An accomplice is guilty of the same offense and usually receives the same sentence as the principal.

And now for the compromise part…

To be a politician is to embrace compromise. And compromise can be an acceptable method of societal interaction. However, in Congress, compromise regularly requires forsaking ethics, morals and principles of both law and honor. I have no problem with a member of Congress compromising on procedural issues. But when Congress-persons ignore the law and do what they want, only arguing over the broad details, compromise become a despicable act of cowardice. Is there ever a line that a member of Congress will not cross?

For example, Congress is presently stewing over this year’s budget, future budgets and raising the Federal debt ceiling. Both Republicans and Democrats are in favor of more borrowing, but Republican leadership says that Congress should find a way to slash Federal spending or Republicans will not vote for the bill. As a matter of practicality, this is what Congress is saying:

“We agree that we would like to steal money from some Americans and give it to other Americans. However, at this time, some of us think it would be OK to borrow the money now and then steal the money from you later. A minority of us don’t want to borrow the money, but just want to steal it directly. At no time in our debate will we consider the morality or legality of stealing from you. Our only concern is the method we use for the theft.”

No consideration of the underlying crime is considered…only how to do it.

Conclusion

Some of you will protest loudly about my position. You will try to tell me how your favorite member of Congress is different, a patriot, a lover of liberty…fighting for the Constitution and fighting against special interests. But I still challenge you to prove me wrong. Tell me how your favorite Congressman would escape prosecution if the acts of Congress were ever prosecuted in a court of law. Remember the Nuremburg trials. Ten men found guilty danced at the end of a rope.

All members of Congress are criminals, in the employ of “The United States of America,” a 234 year-old criminal entity that perpetrates theft, plunder, murder and counterfeiting on a worldwide scale.

The criminality won’t be reduced because (a) congressmen have to raise money for re-election, and they are bought and paid for by lobbyists; and (b) the congressmen would still enact laws that violate the Constitution. The only thing that will stop Congressmen from voting for unconstitutional laws is for the states to stop sending people to serve in Congress. That is secession. Russ